combell_linux_hostings_set_php_version

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a significant behavioral trait—the change affects every website on the hosting immediately—which is not captured by the annotations. Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context about the scope of impact. It does not contradict annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the side effect is stated separately. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral impact (side effect) and relies on the schema for parameter details. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and immediate consequences, though it could optionally mention that the version must be from the provided list.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides no information about the parameters. The schema documents 'version' (with an example) but 'domain_name' lacks any description, and the schema coverage is only 50%. Since the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics, it scores low on this dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Change the PHP version') and the resource ('Linux hosting'), and the side effect clarifies the scope. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like set_php_memory_limit or set_php_apcu, which target different settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when changing the PHP version of a Linux hosting, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The side-effect warning offers some guidance but no explicit exclusions or conditions for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.